august 4, 2017 revised: july 17, 2020 mr. mark a. weaver

20161220.001A/FRE20R112980 (90% Submittal) of 1 August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

KLEINFELDER 3731 West Ashcroft Avenue, Fresno, CA 93722 p| 559-486-0750 f| 559-442-5081

August 4, 2017 Revised: July 17, 2020 Kleinfelder Project No.: 20161220.001A Mr. Mark A. Weaver, MS, PE Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group 986 W. Alluvial Avenue, Suite 201 Fresno, California 93711 SUBJECT: Foundation Report W Manning Avenue over James Bypass West Channel Bridge No. 42C-0691 San Joaquin, Fresno County, California Dear Mr. Weaver: The attached report presents the results of the geotechnical study for the West Manning Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 42C-0691) over James Bypass West Channel project located east of San Joaquin, in Fresno County, California. This report describes our study and provides conclusions and recommendations for use in foundation design and construction. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services to Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group, the County of Fresno, and other project designers. We trust this information meets your current needs. If there are any questions concerning the information presented in this report, please contact this office at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, KLEINFELDER, INC. Adam AhTye, PE Stephen P. Plauson, PE, GE Staff Professional II Principal Geotechnical Engineer AA/SPP:ct

http://www.kleinfelder.com/

20161220.001A/FRE20R112980 (90% Submittal) Page i of iv August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

FOUNDATION REPORT W MANNING AVENUE OVER JAMES BYPASS WEST CHANNEL BRIDGE NO. 42C-0691 SAN JOAQUIN, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA KLEINFELDER PROJECT #20161220.001A

AUGUST 4, 2017 REVISED: JULY 17, 2020

Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved

ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC

PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.


20161220.001A/FRE20R112980 (90% Submittal) Page ii of iv August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

A Report Prepared for: Mr. Mark A. Weaver, MS, PE Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group 986 W. Alluvial Avenue, Suite 201 Fresno, California 93711 FOUNDATION REPORT W MANNING AVENUE OVER JAMES BYPASS WEST CHANNEL BRIDGE NO. 42C-0691 SAN JOAQUIN, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Adam AhTye, PE Staff Professional II Stephen P. Plauson, PE, GE Principal Geotechnical Engineer KLEINFELDER, INC. 3731 W Aschcroft Ave Fresno, California 93722 (559) 486-0750 August 4, 2017 Revised: July 17, 2020 Kleinfelder Project No.: 20161220.001A


20161220.001A/FRE20R112980 (90% Submittal) Page iii of iv August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 GENERAL............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ....................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 2 1.4 POLICY EXCEPTIONS ........................................................................................ 4

2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................. 5 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ........................................................................................ 5 2.2 LABORATORY TESTS ........................................................................................ 5 2.3 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS ......................................................... 6

3 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 8 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS AND TOPOGRAPHY .................................................. 8 3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY........................................................................................ 8 3.3 EARTH MATERIALS ........................................................................................... 8 3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 9 3.5 CHANNEL SCOUR/DEGRADATION ................................................................... 9

4 CORROSION EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 11

5 SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 12 5.1 LOCAL FAULTING ............................................................................................ 12 5.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................ 12

5.2.1 Deterministic Response Spectrum ..................................................... 14 5.2.2 Probabilistic Response Spectrum ...................................................... 14 5.2.3 Design Response Spectrum .............................................................. 14 5.2.4 References ........................................................................................ 14

5.3 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT ................................................ 14

6 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 16 6.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................... 16 6.2 PILE FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................ 16

6.2.1 Axial Capacity .................................................................................... 16 6.2.2 Foundation Construction Considerations ........................................... 18 6.2.3 Lateral Capacity ................................................................................. 18

6.3 DYNAMIC LOADING ......................................................................................... 19 6.3.1 Abutment Dynamic Lateral Resistance .............................................. 19

6.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ....................................................................... 20 6.5 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................... 21 6.6 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT...................................................................................... 21

7 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................... 24


20161220.001A/FRE20R112980 (90% Submittal) Page iv of iv August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURES 1 Site Vicinity Map 2/3 Log of Test Borings APPENDIX A A-1/A-2 Laboratory Summary Table A-3 Atterberg Limit A-4 Sieve Analysis A-5/A-6 Direct Shear A-7 Resistance Value APPENDIX B B ARS Curve


20161220.001A/FRE20R112980 (90% Submittal) Page 1 of 24 August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation for the proposed replacement

of West Manning Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 42C-0691) over James Bypass West Channel,

located east of San Joaquin in Fresno County, California. The scope of services consisted of a

field exploration program, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and preparation of this

written report. This report has been prepared in conjunction with the project 60 percent. The

Foundation Report will be amended as design proceeds, with the final Foundation Report

reflecting final design. A concurrent geotechnical study is also being performed for the West

Manning Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 42C-0692) over James Bypass East Channel located

approximately 1,150 feet east of Bridge No. 42C-0691 and will be presented in a separate

report.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of the Foundation Report is to provide geotechnical recommendations and

opinions to aid in project design. The report provides the following:

• A description of the proposed project;

• A summary of the field exploration and laboratory testing programs;

• Comments on the regional geology and site engineering seismology, including the

recommended peak ground acceleration and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria Version

1.7 ARS curve;

• Comments on liquefaction potential;

• Recommendations for pile foundations, including design and specified tip elevations;

• Recommended LPILE parameters for use in evaluating the pile response to lateral

loads;



• Comments on initial soil stiffness and ultimate equivalent lateral pressure by Caltrans

procedures for abutment end walls; and,

• Log of Test Borings drawing.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The existing structure is a 6-span reinforced concrete precast girder bridge. The structure is 36

feet 8 inches in width and 180 feet in length containing an asphalt concrete overlay. The span

lengths center of bearing (c.o.b.) to c.o.b. are 30 feet between abutments and bents.

Construction of the replacement bridge will involve complete replacement of the existing

structure. The new structure will be a 3-span bridge, 173 feet in length with a total width of 44

feet and span lengths of 72 feet between bents and 50.5 feet between the abutments and

adjacent bents. The replacement is anticipated to include two, 48-inch CIDH (Cast-In-Drilled-

Hole) piles at each abutment and bent. Construction is anticipated to be split into three phases.

Piles, pile extensions, and cap beams would first be erected under the existing bridge, followed

by the bridge’s closure and demolition. Precast voided slab units would then be placed and

paved with a polyester overlay.



Table 1.3-1

Bridge Replacement

Foundation Design Data

Notes: 1. Stations were based on layout drawings provided by Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group 2. Elevations based on project datum 3. Permissible settlement under service limit load

Table 1.3-2

Bridge Replacement

LRFD Loading Data

Support

Service Limit State (kips) Strength Limit State (Controlling

Group, kips) Extreme Event Limit State (Controlling Group, kips)

Total Load Permanent

Load Compression Compression

Per Support Max. per Pile Per Support Per Support Max. per Pile Per Support Max. per Pile

Abutment 1 1020 540 770 1500 800 1100 600

Bent 2 1470 780 1120 2200 1200 1600 810

Bent 3 1470 780 1120 2200 1200 1600 810

Abutment 4 1020 540 770 1500 800 1100 600

Support Location

(Sta. No.)1 Pile Type

Finished Grade Elev.2

(ft)

Cut-off Elev. (ft)

Pile Cap Size (ft) SP

3

No. Piles per

Support B L

Abut 1 28+66.8 48 inch CIDH 183.74 174.24 5 69 1” 2

Bent 2 29+18.8 48 inch CIDH 183.84 174.34 5 69 1” 2

Bent 3 29+90.8 48 inch CIDH 183.99 174.49 5 69 1” 2

Abut 4 30+39.8 48 inch CIDH 184.07 174.57 5 69 1” 2



1.4 POLICY EXCEPTIONS

No known exceptions to Caltrans policy were made in the geotechnical evaluation for the

foundations for this project.



2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

The field exploration for the Manning Avenue Bridge No.42C-0691 replacement consisted of

drilling 3 test borings on July 2 through July 9, 2015. The test borings were drilled with a CME

75 truck-mounted drill rig and CME 55 track-mounted drill rig using hollow stem auger and mud

rotary techniques. Borings B-1 and B-3 were drilled near the abutments to depths of

approximately 81 and 101 feet below ground surface and Boring B-2 was drilled in the canal to

approximately 91 feet below ground surface. The approximate location of the test borings are

shown on the Log of Test Borings drawing in Figures 2 and 3 of this report.

The earth materials encountered in the test borings were visually classified in the field and a

continuous log was recorded. In-place samples of soil units were collected from the test boring

at selected depths by driving a 2.5-inch I.D. split barrel sampler containing brass liners into the

undisturbed soil with a 140-pound automatic safety hammer free falling a distance of 30-inches.

In addition, an ASTM D1586 standard penetrometer without liners (barrel I.D. of 1.5 inches) was

driven 18-inches in the same manner. This latter sampling procedure generally conformed to

the ASTM D1586 test procedure. Resistance to sampler penetration over the last 12-inches is

noted on the Log of Test Borings as the "Penetration Index". The penetration indices listed on

the Log of Test Borings have not been corrected for the effects of overburden pressure, sampler

size, rod length, or hammer efficiency. In addition, bulk samples were obtained from auger

cuttings at selected borings.

Penetration rates determined in general accordance with ASTM D1586 were used to aid in

evaluating the consistency, compression, and strength characteristics of the foundation soils.

2.2 LABORATORY TESTS

Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples to evaluate certain characteristics and

engineering properties. The laboratory testing program was designed with emphasis on the

evaluation of geotechnical properties of foundation materials as they pertain to the proposed

construction. The laboratory testing program included performing the following tests:



• Unit Weight (ASTM D2937)

• Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)

• Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)

• Grain Size Distribution (ASTM D422, without hydrometer)

• Material in Soils Finer than No. 200 (75-μm) Sieve (ASTM D1140)

• Resistance Value (California Test Method No. 301)

• Direct Shear (ASTM D3080)

• Soluble Sulfate and Chloride Content (California Test Method Nos. 417 and 422)

• pH and Minimum Resistivity (California Test Method No. 643)

The soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, pH, and minimum resistivity results are presented in

Section 4.0 (“Corrosion Evaluation”). All other lab test results are presented in Appendix A.

Laboratory data was also used from recent borings drilled for the concurrent geotechnical study

for the nearby West Manning Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 42C-0692) over James Bypass East

Channel.

2.3 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Soil conditions and characteristics are very similar along the West Manning Avenue alignment

at the two bridge sites (Bridge Nos. 42C-0691 and 42C-0692). Design geotechnical parameters

were based on site specific laboratory data for the entire project alignment and interpretation of

the geology in the area. Consideration was also given to correlations with sample penetration

rates. Tables 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 provide a summary of geotechnical design parameters and

generalized soil profile used.

Table 2.3-1

Geotechnical Design Parameters, Abutments

Elevation (feet)

Material t

(pcf)1

Φ (degrees)

c (psf)

184 – 167 SC 123 31 150

167 – 158 SP 122 38 0

158 – 140 SC/SM 128 34 150

140 – 128 SC/CL 127 30 500

Below 128 SP 124 36 0

Notes: 1 Total unit weight 2 Buoyant unit weight



Table 2.3-2

Geotechnical Design Parameters, Bents

Elevation (feet)

Material t

(pcf)1

Φ (degrees)

c (psf)

158 – 140 SC/SM 110 34 150

140 – 128 SC/CL 117 30 500

Below 128 SP 124 36 0




3 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS AND TOPOGRAPHY

Presently, Manning Avenue is a 2-lane paved road supported on a fill embankment,

approximately 8 feet above the surrounding grade with about 2:1 (H:V) side slopes. At the time

of investigation water was not present in the James Bypass West Channel. Some dried

vegetation, debris and rip rap exist on the banks and bottom of the channel. The channel invert

at the replacement is presently at approximately elevation 158 feet with slopes to the

abutments. The unlined James Bypass Canal is about 100 feet west of the bridge. The James

Bypass Canal access roads are at approximately elevation 183 feet.

3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The project site lies in the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley in the Great Valley

geomorphic province in California. This province was formed by the filling of a large structural

trough or downwarp in the underlying bedrock. The trough is situated between the Sierra

Nevada Range on the east and south and the Coast Range on the west. Both of these

mountain ranges were initially formed by uplifts that occurred during the Jurassic and

Cretaceous periods of geologic time (greater than 65 million years ago). Renewed uplift began

in the Sierra Nevada during the Tertiary time, and is continuing today. The trough that underlies

the valley is asymmetrical, with the greatest depths of sediments near the western margin. The

sediments that fill the trough originated as erosion material from the adjacent mountains and

foothills.

3.3 EARTH MATERIALS

The following description provides a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered

during the field exploration and further validated by the laboratory testing program. For a more

thorough description of the actual conditions encountered at the specific boring location, refer to

the Log of Test Borings drawing presented in Figures 2 and 3. The soils encountered were

classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).



The upper natural earth material consists of Holocene age Great Valley basin deposits. Typical

to these deposits, the upper soils are laterally discontinuous. Material at the abutments consists

of clayey sand and sandy lean clay with laterally discontinuous poorly graded and silty sand

layers. Below an elevation of 135 to 130 feet, poorly graded sands were encountered to the

depth explored, about elevation 80. Material encountered at the boring near the bents consist of

about 6 feet of poorly graded sand with silt underlain by silty sand to about elevation 137, sandy

lean clay to about elevation 127, and poorly graded sand with laterally discontinuous layers of

sandy lean clay and silt to the depth explored, elevation 67.

3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The California Department of Water Resources groundwater elevation contours from well data

indicate the static groundwater elevation in the general project area is about elevation 150 feet.

No free groundwater was encountered in any borings along West Manning Avenue at the two

bridge sites. However, elevated moisture levels were detected.

Groundwater may be influenced by water in the James Bypass Canal, which contains water

about 1 to 2 months of the year. It is understood the James Bypass West Channel is a flood

channel that accepts excess flood water from the Kings River. Water in the channel is not likely

to be sustained long enough to increase groundwater elevations sufficient to create buoyant

effects, but it may be possible that a temporary perched water zone could develop in the upper

20 feet of soil below the channel bottom. The temporary perched water condition is anticipated

to mound briefly below the channel bottom and dissipate as the perched water flows laterally

away from the channel. Groundwater conditions at the site could change at some time in the

future due to variations in rainfall, groundwater withdrawal, construction activities, channel flows,

and/or other factors not apparent at the time the test borings were made.

3.5 CHANNEL SCOUR/DEGRADATION

Bridge maintenance reports indicate about 5 feet of channel degradation from 1956 to the

present. Borings within the channel indicate a depth of historic scour to be about 6 feet below

existing channel bottom. The mean grain size (D50) and 90 percent passing grain size (D90) of

the soil anticipated to be exposed in the channel is about 0.34 mm and 8.1 mm, respectively.



A review of the GP for the project indicated potential scour at the supports. A summary of the

design scour is presented in Table 3.5-1.

TABLE 3.5-1 SCOUR DATA

Support No. Long Term (Degradation

and Contraction) Scour Elevation (ft)

Short Term (Local) Scour Depth (ft)

Abutment 1 N/A 7

Bent 2 151 7

Bent 3 151 7

Abutment 4 N/A 7



4 CORROSION EVALUATION

Two soil samples from Boring B-2 at depths of 0 to 5 feet and 20 to 21.5 feet and borings

performed at the adjacent structure were tested to evaluate the soluble sulfate content, soluble

chloride content, and pH and minimum resistivity. Specific test results are presented in

Table 4.1-1.

Table 4.1-1

Corrosion Related Testing

Boring No. Depth (ft) Soluble Sulfate (mg/kg)

Soluble Chloride (mg/kg)

pH Minimum

Resistivity (ohm-cm)

B-2 0-5 199 35.8 9.6 4,200

B-2 20-21.5 3.2 15 8.2 41,500

B-5 0-5 15.7 24.1 8.2 10,500

B-6 30-31.5 7.3 21 8.6 17,100

Laboratory tests indicate the soluble sulfates, soluble chlorides, pH and resistivity are all outside

the Caltrans threshold limits for corrosive soils. As such, the site may be considered as a non-

corrosive environment with respect to steel and concrete foundations. Corrosion is dependent

upon a complex variety of conditions, which are beyond the geotechnical practice.

Consequently, a qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted if the owner desires more

specific recommendations and material types and/or mitigation.



5 SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 LOCAL FAULTING

There are no known faults, which cut through the local soil at the site. The project site is not

located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by Special Publication 42

(revised 2007) published by the California Geologic Survey (CGS). Numerous faults and shear

zones within the region could influence the project site.

5.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

Seismic design parameters were developed in accordance with the Caltrans Seismic Design

Criteria Version 1.7.

The project site is located in a region with the potential for relatively moderate seismic activity.

The more significant faults that could influence the project site include the San Andreas

(Creeping Section) (Fault ID No. 182), the Great Valley 13 (Coalinga) (Fault ID No. 205), and

the San Andreas (Parkfield) (Fault ID No. 214). According to the Caltrans fault database, the

San Andreas (Creeping Section and Parkfield) is a strike slip fault with a dip angle of 90

degrees and assigned a Maximum Magnitude (MMax) of 7.9, and the Great Valley 13 (Coalinga)

is reverse fault with a dip angle of 15 degrees toward the west and assigned a Maximum

Magnitude (MMax) of 7.0.

Based on the boring data, the site can be classified as Soil Profile Type D. A Vs30 of 266 m/s

was used for the evaluation. The site is not located within a California deep soil basin region, as

defined by Caltrans, so Z1.0 and Z2.5 were considered not applicable. Site characteristics and

governing deterministic faults are summarized in Table 5.2-1.



Table 5.2-1

Site Characteristics And

Governing Deterministic Faults Parameters

Site Coordinates Lat = 36.603685 deg, Long = -120.130515 deg

Shear Wave Velocity 266 m/s

Depth to Vs=1.0 km/s, Z1.0 N/A


Fault Name and ID Number San Andreas (Creeping section), No. 182

Maximum Magnitude (MMax) 7.9

Fault Type Strike Slip

Fault Dip 90 degrees

Dip Direction Vertical

Bottom of Rupture Plane 12.00 km

Top of Rupture Plane (Ztor) 0.00 km

RRUP1 73.38 km

RjB2 73.38 km

RX3 73.38 km

Fnorm (1 for normal, 0 for others) 0

Frev (1 for reverse, 0 for others) 0

Fault Name and ID Number Great Valley (Coalinga), No. 205


Fault Type Reverse


Dip Direction West



RRUP1 35.59 km

RjB2 34.41 km

RX3 33.90 km



Fault Name and ID Number San Andreas (Parkfield), No. 214







RRUP1 80.12 km

RjB2 80.12 km

RX3 75.12 km



Notes: 1RRUP = Closest distance from the site to the fault rupture plane. 2RJB = Joyner-Boore distance; the shortest horizontal distance to the surface projection

of the rupture area. 3RX = Horizontal distance from the site to the fault trace or surface projection of the top of

the rupture plane.



5.2.1 Deterministic Response Spectrum

The deterministic response spectrum was developed using ARS Online. The deterministic

response spectrum from the Minimum Spectrum for California governed.

5.2.2 Probabilistic Response Spectrum

The probabilistic response spectrum was developed using ARS Online.

5.2.3 Design Response Spectrum

The upper envelope of the deterministic and probabilistic spectral values determines the design

response spectrum. The probabilistic response spectra were found to govern for all periods.

The recommended acceleration and displacement design response spectra are presented

graphically and numerically in Appendix B.

5.2.4 References

Caltrans. Caltrans ARS Online, http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online

Caltrans. Geotechnical Services Manual.

Caltrans. Seismic Design Criteria, Appendix B Design Spectrum

Caltrans. Website http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/technical.php

5.3 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT

In order for liquefaction of soils due to ground shaking to occur, it is generally accepted that four

conditions will exist:

• The subsurface soils are in a relatively loose state,

• The soils are saturated,

• The soils are non-plastic, and

• Ground motion is of sufficient intensity to act as a triggering mechanism.



Based on the ARS curve, the design Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA) is 0.34g, with

a Moment Magnitude of 6.5. The potential for liquefaction was evaluated using Youd et. al. The

depth of ground water would preclude the occurrence of liquefaction.

Dynamic compaction, or seismic settlement, can occur in unsaturated, loose granular soils or in

poorly-compacted fill soils. The potential seismic induced settlement of unsaturated sand

sediments at this site was evaluated using data from the current borings and the methodology

described by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). The results of settlement calculations indicated that the

estimated seismic settlement in the unsaturated soil is estimated to be about ½ to 1¾ inches as a

result of a magnitude 6.5 earthquake. This potential seismic settlement may induce downdrag on

piles.



6 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 GENERAL

Based on the field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses, the soils at the

site are suitable for supporting the planned bridge structure. Due to the scour potential, loading

conditions and other constraints, pile foundations were considered appropriate. Driven piles

have been precluded as an option due to the presence of a nearby underground utility that

could be damaged by vibrations from pile driving. Therefore, Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles

are considered a suitable alternative.

It is understood designers are planning complete replacement of the existing structure. The

replacement process will utilize two, 48-inch CIDH piles at each abutment and bent. The

following sections discuss conclusions and recommendations to support design of the CIDH pile

foundations.

6.2 PILE FOUNDATIONS

6.2.1 Axial Capacity

Table 6.2-1 provides the unfactored downdrag load on the 48-inch diameter piles due to seismic

dry settlement of the upper 14 feet of the abutments soil profile and the upper 11 feet of the

bents soil profile. Table 6.2-2 provides the recommended design and specified tip elevations for

the abutments and bents and includes the downdrag. Piles should be spaced at a minimum

distance of 3 pile diameters center to center. Reduced axial capacities would be applicable for

piles spaced closer than 3 pile diameters.

Table 6.2-1

Seismically Induced Downdrag

Support Unfactored Nominal Downdrag on

48-inch CIDH Pile (kips)

Abutment 1 52

Bents 2 & 3 78

Abutment 4 46



Table 6.2-2

Foundation Recommendations for Abutments and Bents

Support Pile Cut-off Elev. (ft)

Service Limit State Max. Load (kips) per

Pile

SP

Required Factored Nominal Resistance per Pile (kips) Design

Tip Elev.1 (ft)

Specified Tip Elev.2

(ft)

Strength Limit Extreme Event

Comp.

(=0.7)

Tens.

(=0.7)

Comp

(=1)

Tens

(=1)

Abut 1 48” CIDH 173.1 540 1” 800 0 600 0

138 (a) 136 (a-I) 147 (a-II), 149 (c), TBD (d)4

136

Bent 2 48” CIDH 159.0 780 1” 1200 0 810 0

95 (a) 92 (a-I)

116 (a-II), 117 (c), TBD (d)

92

Bent 3 48” CIDH 161.0 780 1” 1200 0 810 0

95 (a) 92 (a-I)

116 (a-II), 117 (c), TBD (d)

92

Abut 4 48” CIDH 174.7 540 1” 800 0 600 0

129 (a) 127 (a-I) 145 (a-II), 146 (c), TBD (d)

127

Notes: (1) Design tip elevations are controlled by: (a) Compression (Service Limit), (a-I) Compression (Strength Limit), (b-I) Tension (Strength Limit), (a-II) Compression (Extreme Event), (b-II) Tension (Extreme Event), (c) Settlement, (d) Lateral Load.

(2) The specified tip elevation shall not be raised above the design tip elevations for tension, lateral, and tolerable settlement. (3) The nominal driving resistance required is equal to the nominal resistance needed to support the factored load plus driving resistance

from the potentially liquefied soil layers, which do not contribute to the design resistance. (4) Design tip elevation for lateral loading to be provided by Cornerstone.



6.2.2 Foundation Construction Considerations

Pile borings will primarily expose relatively clean to silty sand, which will be susceptible to

caving. Construction of the CIDH piles should utilize a casing oscillator, permanent or

temporary casing, or slurry assisted drilling techniques. If permanent casing is used, Special

Provisions should require the casing be tight to the soil (similar to Caltrans Standard

Specification for temporary casing).

6.2.3 Lateral Capacity

The lateral response of pile foundations can be evaluated using LPILE Plus Version 5.0, or

greater, for Windows (computer software developed by Ensoft Inc.). The geotechnical

parameters summarized in Tables 6.2-3 and 6.2-4 can be used for evaluation of lateral loading

of piles at abutments and bents, respectively.

Table 6.2-3

LPILE Parameters, Abutments

Elevation 1 (feet)

Recommended P-Y Curve

(pci)

(degree)

c (psi)

k (pci)

50

184 – 167 Silt (Cemented c-phi Soil) 0.071 31 1.04 300 0.005

167 – 158 Sand (Reese) 0.071 38 -- 300 --



Below 128 Sand (Reese) 0.072 36 -- 230 --

Notes: 1 Assumes Elevation 184 for bridge deck

Table 6.2-4

LPILE Parameters, Bents

Elevation 1 (feet)


(pci)

(degree)

c (psi)

k (pci)

50



Below 128 Sand (Reese) 0.072 36 -- 330 --

Notes: 1 Assumes Elevation 158 for channel bottom



When considering the lateral capacity of a pile group, it will be necessary to reduce the single

pile capacity of trailing piles. The reduction in capacity due to the effects of shaft interaction will

be dependent upon the center-to-center (CTC) pile spacing. It is recommended that the

capacity of individual trailing piles in a laterally loaded group be reduced according to the data in

Table 6.2-5.

Table 6.2-5

Group Affect for Laterally Loaded Pile

CTC Spacing (In-line Loading)

Ratio of Lateral Resistance of Trailing Pile in Group to Isolated Single Pile

3B 0.6

4B 0.8

5B 1.0

Note: B is pile width

If desired, a more precise lateral group effect can be evaluated based on final geometry.

6.3 DYNAMIC LOADING

6.3.1 Abutment Dynamic Lateral Resistance

For backfill at abutments constructed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Caltrans

Standard Specifications (2015), an initial abutment soil stiffness of 50 kip/in/ft is recommended.

The ultimate lateral resistance that may be applied against abutments to resist seismic loading

will be dependent on the deflection that occurs (which mobilizes shear resistance in the soil).

Figure 6.3-1 presents the ultimate equivalent uniform lateral soil resistance as a function of

horizontal strain (deflection/height) for the abutments. The maximum resistance for strain in

excess of 1.0 percent is 5.0 ksf, when the height of the wall that is buried below the horizontal

ground surface is equal to, or greater than, 5.5 feet. When the abutment height is less than 5.5

feet, the maximum equivalent uniform lateral soil resistance shall be reduced proportionately by

H/5.5, where H is the endwall height in feet.



Figure 6.3-1

Unfactored Nominal Lateral Bearing for Seismic Loading at Abutments

6.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Table 6.4-1 provides the lateral earth pressures against retaining walls. The recommended

values do not include lateral pressures due to hydrostatic forces. Therefore, wall backfill should

be adequately drained. Data are presented for active, braced, and at-rest conditions for walls

supporting level ground surface. The values consider the anticipated strength of backfill and the

performance of existing structures. Lateral earth pressures are strain related. The active

pressure would be applicable to walls capable of rotating 0.0005 radians. The at-rest pressures

are applicable to walls fully fixed against translation or rotation. The at-rest pressures include

the Jaky solution for normally consolidated soil plus consideration for the locked-in pressure

associated with the pre-stressing due to backfill compaction (over-consolidation).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Horizontal Strain (%)

Eff

ec

tiv

e U

nif

orm

So

il R

es

ista

nc

e (

ks

f)

Maximum 5.0 ksf



Table 6.4-1

Retaining Wall Parameters

Condition Earth Pressures

Active 35 psf/ft

Braced1 23H psf

At Rest 85 psf/ft

Dynamic Increments 13 psf/ft

Note: 1 H is the wall height in feet.

The above values are less than those used for Caltrans Standard Plan walls. Therefore,

Standard Plan retaining walls could be used.

6.5 EARTHWORK

In general, any required fill or backfill should be constructed in accordance with the latest

revisions of Caltrans Standard Specifications. It is anticipated minor fills may be associated with

the project, and are anticipated to not have significant post-construction settlement.

6.6 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Soil samples were obtained along Manning Avenue alignment at the two bridge sites (Bridge

Nos. 42C-0691 and 42C-0692). The site subgrade soil consists of sandy lean clays and clayey

sands at B-3 and B-4 with R-values of 8 and 6, respectively. A design R-value of 5 was used for

West Manning Avenue. Table 6.6-1 provides optional conventional flexible pavement sections

for Traffic Indexes of 8.5 and 9.0, based on an anticipated daily traffic provided by Cornerstone.

Analysis is based on Caltrans procedures.



Table 6.6-1

Conventional Flexible Pavement Sections

(Based on Subgrade R-Value = 5)

Traffic Index

Optional Sections (feet)

2-Layer Section 3-Layer Section

8.5 0.40 HMA / 1.65 AB 0.40 HMA / 0.55 AB / 1.20 ASB

9.0 0.45 HMA / 1.70 AB 0.45 HMA / 0.55 AB / 1.30 ASB

Table 6.6-2 provides overlay recommendations for existing pavement. Sections are based on

the anticipated R-Value of existing subgrade soil, the furnished Traffic Index (TI) for the road

segment, and a 10-year and 20-year design life. It is understood the County of Fresno is

planning to mill and overlay the existing pavement to match previous overlays west and east of

the project site. The proposed overlay thickness is anticipated to be 0.45 feet. Considering the

R-value and design TI, the proposed overlay thickness is not anticipated to provide a 20-year

design life, but is anticipated to have a similar design life to other portions of Manning Avenue

that have recently had similar overlays.

Table 6.6-2

Recommended Design Pavement Sections


Traffic Index

Minimum Overlay (feet)

10-year Design 20-year Design

8.5 0.85 HMA 0.95 HMA

9.0 0.95 HMA 1.00 HMA

Hot mix asphalt (HMA), Class 2 aggregate base (AB) and Class 2 aggregate subbase (AS)

should conform to, and be placed in accordance with, the latest revision of Caltrans Standard

Specifications. Considering the clayey nature of the subgrade, it is recommended subgrade be

scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture

and compacted to at least 90 percent, but not more than 95 percent of maximum density. It is

recommended the maximum density for subgrade be based on ASTM D1557.



Alternatively, full depth reclamation with cement (FDR-C) of subgrade and HMA could be

considered. A minimum FDR-C section of 18 inches would be recommended. If FDR-C is

chosen as the design alternative, a mix design can be prepared. For preliminary purposes, a

portland cement content of 5 to 7 percent amendment is typical in sandy lean clay materials to

result in a design unconfined compressive strength of 400 psi. The minimum HMA thickness

would be 0.35 and 0.40 feet for TIs of 8.5 and 9, respectively. The “weak link” of the section is

the HMA wearing surface, which is the easiest and most economical layer to maintain, repair, or

rehabilitate to meet future needs. The full depth thickness, versus the minimum thickness, is

less vulnerable to brittle fatigue or shrinkage cracking. The use of 1.5 feet of cement treated

subgrade (CTS) will result in the overall HMA/CTS being suitable for a TI of 9.7 and 10.2, with

the HMA surface being the only element requiring future rehabilitation. Traffic can be diverted

onto the compacted full depth CTS after finish grading. With the minimum CTS thickness,

automobile traffic could be placed on the subgrade after finish grading. Care must be exercised

to not over stress the minimum CTS with truck traffic until the first HMA lift is placed.

Lime treatment could be considered to reduce aggregate base thickness for asphalt pavement

sections. Previous work performed in the area has indicated that lime treatment using an

engineered process, which includes testing for soil chemistry, necessary lime content and R-

Value, and development of QC/QA procedures, can successfully improve the stability of

subgrade materials. If lime treatment is desired, the additional testing and recommendations

can be provided.



7 CLOSURE

The conclusions and recommendations in this report are for the design of the proposed West

Manning Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 42C-0691) replacement across the James Bypass West

Channel, located in Fresno County, California, as described in the text of this report. The

findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in

accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty, express or

implied, is made. The field exploration program and this report were based on the proposed

project information provided to Kleinfelder. If any change (i.e., structure type, location, etc.) is

implemented which materially alters the project, additional geotechnical services may be

required, which could include revisions to the recommendations given herein.

This report is intended for use by Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group, County of Fresno,

and their subconsultants, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Noncompliance with the

recommendations of the report or misuse of the report will release Kleinfelder from any liability.

The scope of the geotechnical services did not include an environmental site assessment for the

presence or absence of hazardous/toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or

atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands.


20161220.001A/FRE20R112980 (90% Submittal) August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURES ___________________________________________________________________________________


0

6,000 6,0003,000

APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)

AT

TA

CH

ED

X

RE

FS

:

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: Im

ag

es: U

SG

S_

Th

eN

atio

na

lM

ap

_A

eria

l_

4-m

il_

3-2

01

5_

Sa

nJo

aq

uin

-C

A.JP

G

FILE NAME:

20161220-fig1_SVM-EBrg.dwg

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN:

PROJECT NO.

CA

D F

IL

E: C

:\C

AD

D\2

01

5\2

01

61

22

0\Ja

me

sB

yp

assB

rid

ge

-M

an

nin

gA

ve

_7

-2

01

5\E

aste

rn

Brid

ge

\ L

AY

OU

T: 1

PL

OT

TE

D: 1

5 Ju

l 2

01

5, 9

:3

3p

m, M

Griffin

www.kleinfelder.com

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of

sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or

warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of

such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it

designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information

contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the

information.

LO

NG

B

EA

CH

, C

A

MANNING AVENUE OVER JAMES BYPASS

BRIDGE NO. 42C-0066

SAN JOAQUIN, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

FIGURE

1MRG

NP

7/2015

20161220

SITE VICINITY MAP

CA

D F

IL

E: L

:C

AD

D\2

01

5\

SOURCE: U.S.G.S. / THE NATIONAL MAP, AERIAL SERIES, SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA, DATED 4/2014.

42C-0691

BRIDGE 42C-0691

(

8JJV

7OJW'6JSVL6JSVL

-

)()(

)-)-

*(*(

).(

*-*-

)--

+(+(

)-(

+-+-

),-

,(,(

),(

,-,-

)+-

-(-(

)+(

----

)*-

)*(

))-

))(

)(-

*1$(( *1$-(*0$-(

)*-

.(.(

)*(

.-.-

))-

/(/(

))(

/-/-

)(-

0(0(

)((

0-0-

1-1-

1(1(

1(1(

1-1-

0-0-

)((

(

8JJV

7OJW'6JSVL6JSVL

)0(

)0-

-

)/-

)()(

)/(

)-)-

).-

*(*(

).(

*-*-

)--

+(+(

)-(

+-+-

),-

,(,(

),(

,-,-

)+-

-(-(

)+(

----

----

0(0(

>?C7B2

��

! � " " �" � �� ) � " ( � ��* � & ' �� % ��

�� )#**'*&

#/$*.$

@A?<75C

��

� � � �* �� 90,86/:�� ; .

� 8.956�� +31/6851+��

--1',0.'(/-(

XXX'NOJMQKJOIJT'HRP

90%

.(.(

.-.-

/(/(

/-/-

0(0(

)((

0-0-

1-1-

1(1(

1(1(

0-0-

0(0(

/-/-

/(/(

.-.-

----

+($(( +($-( +)$((

(

8JJV

7OJW'6JSVL6JSVL

)0(

)0-

-

)/-

)()(

)/(

)-)-

).-

*(*(

).(

*-*-

)--

+(+(

)-(

+-+-

),-

,(,(

),(

,-,-

)+-

-(-(

)+(

----

)*-

.(.(

)*(

.-.-

))-

))(

)(-

)((

----

/(/(

/-/-

0(0(

0-0-

��

! � " " �" � �� ) � " ( � ��* � & ' �� % ��

�� )#**'*&

#/$*.$

>?C7B2

@A?<75C

��

� � � �* �� 90,86/:�� ; .

� 8.956�� +31/6851+��

--1',0.'(/-(

XXX'NOJMQKJOIJT'HRP

90%


APPENDIX A

___________________________________________________________________________________

Figure

Laboratory Summary Table ............................................................................................... A-1/A-2 Atterberg Limit......................................................................................................................... A-3 Sieve Analysis......................................................................................................................... A-4 Direct Shear ...................................................................................................................... A-5/A-6 Resistance Value .................................................................................................................... A-7


B-1 0.0 - 5.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 48

B-1 5.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 19.2 104.4 Direct Shear=

Peak Cohesion: 150 psf

Peak Friction Angle: 33.0°

20% Stress Cohesion: 150 psf

20% Stress Friction Angle: 33.0°

B-1 10.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 18.5 111.3

B-1 20.0 POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP) 3.8 109.5

B-1 25.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 27

B-1 30.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 22.9 105.7

B-1 40.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 9.9 108.7

B-1 50.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 20.0 109.9


B-2 0.0 - 5.0 POORLY-GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) 100 9.3 pH= 9.6

Resistivity= 4200

Sulfates= 199

Chlorides= 35.8

B-2 5.0 POORLY-GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) 1.7 102.3

B-2 10.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 18

B-2 15.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 6.1 103.3

B-2 20.0 SILTY SAND (SM) pH= 8.2

Resistivity= 41500

Sulfates= 3.2

Chlorides= 15

B-2 25.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 3.8 112.2 29 16 13

B-2 35.0 POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP) 30.7 95.0 Direct Shear=



Pas

sin

g 3

/4"

Sieve Analysis (%)

Pas

sin

g #

4

Pas

sin

g #

200

Atterberg Limits

Liq

uid

Lim

it

Sample Description

Pla

stic

Lim

it

Wat

er C

on

ten

t (%

)

Dry

Un

it W

t. (

pcf

)

ExplorationID Additional Tests

Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or thesupplemental plates for the method used for the testingperformed above.NP = NonPlastic

FIGURELABORATORY TESTRESULT SUMMARY

A-1

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Depth(ft.)

MANNING AVENUE OVER JAMES BYPASSBRIDGE NO. 42C-0066

SAN JOAQUIN, FRESNO COUNTY, CA

gINT FILE: L:\drafting\2015\20161220-James Bypass Bridges\20161220-James Bypass Bridges.gpj

gINT TEMPLATE: PROJECTWISE: KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB [LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 08/07/2015 02:29 PM BY: TDeSouza

KLEINFELDER - 5125 N. Gates Avenue, Suite 102 | Fresno, CA 93722 | PH: 559.486.0750 | FAX: 559.442.5081 | www.kleinfelder.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

REVISED: -

DATE:

PROJECT NO.: 20161220

42C-0691



B-3 0.33 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) R-Value= 8

B-3 5.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 12.8 120.8

B-3 15.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 10.7 111.2

B-3 20.0 POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP) 5.6


B-3 35.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 9.7 112.1

B-3 45.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 28.3 95.6

Pas

sin

g 3

/4"

Sieve Analysis (%)

Pas

sin

g #

4

Pas

sin

g #

200

Atterberg Limits

Liq

uid

Lim

it

Sample Description

Pla

stic

Lim

it

Wat

er C

on

ten

t (%

)

Dry

Un

it W

t. (

pcf

)




A-2

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Depth(ft.)






CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

REVISED: -

DATE:


42C-0691

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LL PL PIPassing#200

FIGURE

A-3

Exploration ID Depth (ft.)

16

16NM25

CL-ML

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

(P

I)

CL or OL

"U" L

INE

ML or OL4

7

MH or OH

"A" L

INE

CH or OH

Testing perfomed in general accordance with ASTM D4318.NP = NonplasticNM = Not Measured

Sample Description

B-2 29 13SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)




Chart Reference: ASTM D2487

CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 7/10/2015

DRAWN BY: TD

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

fting

\20

15\2

016

122

0-Ja

mes

Byp

ass

Brid

ges\

2016

1220

-Jam

es B

ypas

s B

ridge

s.gp

j

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_ST

AN

DA

RD

_GIN

T_L

IBR

AR

Y_2

015

.GLB

[K

LF_A

TT

ER

BE

RG

(A

ST

M)]

PLO

TT

ED

: 08

/07/

201

5 0

2:3

0 P

M B

Y:

TD

eSou

za


For classification of fine-grained soilsand fine-grained fraction of coarse-grainedsoils.

42C-0691

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

Sample Description LL PL PI

%SiltCu %ClayCcExploration ID Depth (ft.)

FIGURE

A-4

SIEVE ANALYSIS

50HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

1403 4 20 40

BO

UL

DE

R

6 601.5 8 143/4 1/212 3/8 3 10024 16 301 2006 10

Sieve Analysis and Hydrometer Analysis testing performed in general accordancewith ASTM D422.NP = NonplasticNM = Not Measured

D60 D30 D10D100Passing

3/4"Passing

#4Passing

#200

NMNM NM

0.218 0.080 - 5 1009.5 NMNM


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

medium fine

GRAVEL SANDCOBBLE

coarse coarseCLAYSILT

fine

Coefficients of Uniformity - Cu = D60 / D10

Coefficients of Curvature - CC = (D30)2 / D60 D10

D60 = Grain diameter at 60% passing



9.3

0 - 5B-2

B-2 0.415

POORLY-GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

1.43 5.18




CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 7/10/2015

DRAWN BY: TD

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

fting

\20

15\2

016

122

0-Ja

mes

Byp

ass

Brid

ges\

2016

1220

-Jam

es B

ypas

s B

ridge

s.gp

j

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_ST

AN

DA

RD

_GIN

T_L

IBR

AR

Y_2

015

.GLB

[K

LF_S

IEV

E A

NA

LYS

IS]

PLO

TT

ED

: 08

/07/

201

5 0

2:3

1 P

M B

Y:

TD

eSou

za


42C-0691

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Dry UnitWeight (pcf) Area (in2) Height (in)Saturation (%) Void Ratio

Init

ial

At

Tes

t

Void RatioSpecimen No. Height (in)Area (in2)Saturation (%)WaterContent (%)

Dry UnitWeight (pcf)

Strain Rate(in/min)

HorizontalDisplacement (in)

5

NM NMNMNM

DIRECT SHEARFIGURE

A-5

1

2

3

Exploration ID Depth (ft.) Sample Description

Plasticity IndexPlastic LimitLiquid LimitPassing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Specific Gravity

WaterContent (%)Specimen No.

102.9

99.6

98.8

1.00

1.00

1.00

NormalStress (psf)

799.9

1506

2105

799.9

1506

2105

Specimen No.

Results

Peak


NM

Tan (deg)

1

2

3

1

2

3

1000

2000

3000

4.60

4.60

4.60

20% Stress

Friction (deg)

Peak Trend 20% Stress Trend

Cohesion (psf)

20% Stress ShearStress (psf)

SH

EA

R S

TR

ES

S (

psf)

Peak ShearStress (psf)

NORMAL STRESS (psf)

B-1

19.2

19.2

19.2

150

150

33

33

CLAYEY SAND (SC)




CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 7/10/2015

DRAWN BY: TD

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

fting

\20

15\2

016

122

0-Ja

mes

Byp

ass

Brid

ges\

2016

1220

-Jam

es B

ypas

s B

ridge

s.gp

j

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_ST

AN

DA

RD

_GIN

T_L

IBR

AR

Y_2

015

.GLB

[K

LF_D

IRE

CT

SH

EA

R]

PLO

TT

ED

: 08

/07/

201

5 0

2:3

5 P

M B

Y:

TD

eSou

za


42C-0691

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000


Init

ial

At

Tes

t



Strain Rate(in/min)


35

TEST CONDITIONS: Cohesionless

NM NMNMNM

DIRECT SHEARFIGURE

1

2

3




90.3

89.4

88.9

1.00

1.00

1.00

30.6

30.4

29.8

NormalStress (psf)

1.00

1.00

1.00

4.60

4.60

4.60

2573.7

2796.2

3621.11

1999.76

2291.47

2728.73

Specimen No.

Results

Peak

NM

Tan (deg)

1

2

3

1

2

3

3000

4000

5000

4.60

4.60

4.60

0.4900

0.4900

0.4900

0.005

0.005

0.005

20% Stress

Friction (deg)


Cohesion (psf)


SH

EA

R S

TR

ES

S (

psf)


NORMAL STRESS (psf)

B-2

9.2

9.2

9.2

0

550

35

24

POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP)




Testing perfomed in general accordance with ASTM D3080.NP = NonplasticNM = Not Measured = Unused Data Points

A-6CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 7/10/2015

DRAWN BY: TD

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

fting

\20

15\2

016

122

0-Ja

mes

Byp

ass

Brid

ges\

2016

1220

-Jam

es B

ypas

s B

ridge

s.gp

j

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_ST

AN

DA

RD

_GIN

T_L

IBR

AR

Y_2

015

.GLB

[K

LF_D

IRE

CT

SH

EA

R]

PLO

TT

ED

: 08

/07/

201

5 0

2:4

3 P

M B

Y:

TD

eSou

za


42C-0691

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

FIGURE

A-7

R-VALUE

Exploration ID Depth (ft.) R-Value @ 300 psiExudation PressureSample Description

CorrectedResistance

ValueExudation Pressure (psi)Expansion Pressure (psi)Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

R-V

ALU

E

EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)

8

1

2

3

118.1

115.8

113.0

434

333

233

13.7

14.6

16.0

9

8

7

0

0

0

Moisture at Time of Test (%)Specimen No.

Testing perfomed in general accordance with ASTM D2844.

B-3 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)0.33 - 5




CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 7/10/2015

DRAWN BY: TD

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

fting

\20

15\2

016

122

0-Ja

mes

Byp

ass

Brid

ges\

2016

1220

-Jam

es B

ypas

s B

ridge

s.gp

j

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_ST

AN

DA

RD

_GIN

T_L

IBR

AR

Y_2

015

.GLB

[K

LF_R

-VA

LUE

]P

LOT

TE

D:

08/0

7/20

15

02

:52

PM

BY

: T

DeS

ouza


42C-0691


APPENDIX B

ARS CURVE

___________________________________________________________________________________


SITE DATALatitude: 36.6037 Shear Wave Velocity 266 m/s

Longitude: -120.130515Depth to Vs = 1.0 km/s: N/A

Depth to Vs = 2.5 km/s: N/A

Period (s) SA (g) SD (in)

0.01 (PGA) 0.346 0.00

0.05 0.524 0.01

0.1 0.627 0.06

0.15 0.710 0.16

0.2 0.775 0.30

0.25 0.762 0.47

0.3 0.751 0.66

0.4 0.673 1.05

0.5 0.618 1.51

0.6 0.556 1.96

0.7 0.508 2.44

0.85 0.442 3.13

1 0.389 3.81

1.2 0.330 4.65

1.5 0.271 5.97

2 0.210 8.22

3 0.135 11.89

4 0.096 15.03

5 0.077 18.84

PROJECT NO 20161220 FIGURE

DRAWN: 8/3/17

DRAWN BY: TD

CHECKED BY: NMP

FILE NAME:

CALTRANS ARS CURVES


BRIDGE NO. 42C-0691


B-1

www.kleinfelder.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Sp

ectr

al

Accele

rati

on

(g

)

Period (seconds)

Design Spectrum

Deterministic Spectrum

Probabilistic Spectrum

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Sp

ectr

al

Dis

pla

cem

en

t (i

n)

Period (seconds)

Design Spectrum




20161220.001A/FRE20112981 (90% Submittal) August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

KLEINFELDER 3731 West Ashcroft Avenue, Fresno, CA 93722 p| 559-486-0750 f| 559-442-5081

August 4, 2017 Revised: July 17, 2020 Kleinfelder Project No.: 20161220.001A Mr. Mark A. Weaver, MS, PE Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group 986 W. Alluvial Avenue, Suite 201 Fresno, California 93711 SUBJECT: Foundation Report W Manning Avenue over James Bypass West Channel Bridge No. 42C-0692 San Joaquin, Fresno County, California Dear Mr. Weaver: The attached report presents the results of the geotechnical study for the West Manning Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 42C-0692) over James Bypass East Channel located east of San Joaquin, in Fresno County, California. This report describes our study and provides conclusions and recommendations for use in foundation design and construction. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services to Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group, the County of Fresno, and other project designers. We trust this information meets your current needs. If there are any questions concerning the information presented in this report, please contact this office at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, KLEINFELDER, INC. Adam AhTye, PE Stephen P. Plauson, PE, GE Staff Professional II Principal Geotechnical Engineer AA/SPP:ct


20161220.001A/FRE20R112981 (90% Submittal) Page i of iv August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

FOUNDATION REPORT W MANNING AVENUE OVER JAMES BYPASS EAST CHANNEL BRIDGE NO. 42C-0692 SAN JOAQUIN, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA KLEINFELDER PROJECT #20161220.001A

AUGUST 4, 2017 REVISED: JULY 17, 2020

Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved

ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC

PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.



20161220.001A/FRE20R112981 (90% Submittal) Page ii of iv August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

A Report Prepared for: Mr. Mark A. Weaver, MS, PE Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group 986 W. Alluvial Avenue, Suite 201 Fresno, California 93711 FOUNDATION REPORT W MANNING AVENUE OVER JAMES BYPASS WEST CHANNEL BRIDGE NO. 42C-0692 SAN JOAQUIN, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Adam AhTye, PE Staff Professional II Stephen P. Plauson, PE, GE Principal Geotechnical Engineer KLEINFELDER, INC. 3731 W Aschcroft Ave Fresno, California 93722 (559) 486-0750 August 4, 2017 Revised: July 17, 2020 Kleinfelder Project No.: 20161220.001A


20161220.001A/FRE20R112981 (90% Submittal) Page iii of iv August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 GENERAL............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ....................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 2 1.4 POLICY EXCEPTIONS ........................................................................................ 4

2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................. 5 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING ................................................................ 5 2.2 LABORATORY TESTS ........................................................................................ 5 2.3 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS ......................................................... 6

3 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 7 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS AND TOPOGRAPHY .................................................. 7 3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY........................................................................................ 7 3.3 EARTH MATERIALS ........................................................................................... 7 3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 8 3.5 CHANNEL SCOUR/DEGRADATION ................................................................... 8

4 CORROSION EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 10

5 SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 11 5.1 LOCAL FAULTING ............................................................................................ 11 5.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................ 11

5.2.1 Deterministic Response Spectrum.......................................................... 13 5.2.2 Probabilistic Response Spectrum ........................................................... 13 5.2.3 Design Response Spectrum ................................................................... 13 5.2.4 References ............................................................................................. 13

5.3 LIQUEFACTION AND SIESMIC SETTLEMENT ................................................ 13

6 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 15 6.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................... 15 6.2 PILE FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................ 15

6.2.1 Axial Capacity ........................................................................................ 15 6.2.2 Foundation Construction Considerations ................................................ 17 6.2.3 Lateral Capacity ..................................................................................... 17

6.3 DYNAMIC LOADING ......................................................................................... 18 6.3.1 Abutment Dynamic Lateral Resistance ................................................... 18

6.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ....................................................................... 19 6.5 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................... 20 6.6 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT...................................................................................... 20

7 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................... 23


20161220.001A/FRE20R112981 (90% Submittal) Page iv of iv August 4, 2017 © 2020 Kleinfelder Revised: July 17, 2020 www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURES 1 Site Vicinity Map 2 Log of Test Borings APPENDIX A A-1/A-2 Laboratory Summary Table A-3 Sieve Analysis A-4 Unconfined Compressive Strength A-5/A-6 Direct Shear A-7 Resistance Value APPENDIX B B ARS Curve



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation for the proposed replacement of

West Manning Avenue Bridge (Bridge No.42C-0692) over James Bypass East Channel, located

east of San Joaquin in Fresno County, California. The scope of services consisted of a field

exploration program, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and preparation of this written

report. This report has been prepared in conjunction with the project 60 percent. The Foundation

Report will be amended as design proceeds, with the final Foundation Report reflecting final

design. A concurrent geotechnical study is also being performed for the West Manning Avenue

Bridge (Bridge No. 42C-0691) over James Bypass West Channel located approximately 1,150

feet west of Bridge No. 42C-0692 and will be presented in a separate report.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of the Foundation Report is to provide geotechnical recommendations and opinions

to aid in project design. The report provides the following:

• A description of the proposed project;

• A summary of the field exploration and laboratory testing programs;

• Comments on the regional geology and site engineering seismology, including the

recommended peak ground acceleration and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.7

ARS curve;

• Comments on liquefaction potential;

• Recommendations for pile foundations, including design and specified tip elevations;

• Recommended LPILE parameters for use in evaluating the pile response to lateral loads;

• Comments on initial soil stiffness and ultimate equivalent lateral pressure by Caltrans

procedures for abutment end walls; and,



• Log of Test Borings drawing.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The existing structure is a 3-span reinforced concrete precast girder bridge. The structure is 36

feet 8 inches in width and 70 feet in length containing an asphalt concrete overlay. The span

lengths center of bearing (c.o.b.) to c.o.b. are 30 feet between bents and 20 feet between

abutments and adjacent bents.

Construction of the replacement bridge will involve complete replacement of the existing structure.

The new structure will have a total width of 44 feet, with a single span length of 64.75 feet. The

replacement process is anticipated to include two, 48-inch CIDH (Cast-In-Drilled-Hole) piles at

each abutment. Construction is anticipated to be split into three phases. Piles, pile extensions,

and cap beams would first be erected under the existing bridge, followed by the bridge’s closure

and demolition. Precast voided slab units would then be placed and paved with a polyester

overlay.



Table 1.3-1

Bridge Replacement


Notes: 1 Stations were based on layout drawings provided by Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group 2 Elevations based on project datum 3 Permissible settlement under service limit load

Table 1.3-2

Bridge Replacement


Support

Service Limit State (kips) Strength Limit State

(Controlling Group, kips) Extreme Event Limit State (Controlling Group, kips)

Total Load Permanent

Load Compression Compression

Per Support Max. per Pile Per Support Per Support Max. per Pile Per Support Max. per Pile

Abutment 1 1020 540 740 1500 840 1060 570

Abutment 2 1020 540 740 1500 840 1060 570

Support Location

(Sta. No.)1 Pile Type

Finished Grade Elev.2

(ft)

Cut-off Elev. (ft)

Pile Cap Size (ft) SP

3

No. Piles per

Support B L

Abut 1 42+33.88 48 inch CIDH 183.49 174.49 5 50 2” 2

Abut 2 42+96.17 48 inch CIDH 183.33 174.33 5 50 2” 2



1.4 POLICY EXCEPTIONS

No known exceptions to Caltrans policy were made in the geotechnical evaluation for the

foundations for this project.



2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING

The field exploration for the Manning Avenue Bridge No.42C-0692 replacement consisted of

drilling 3 test borings on July 7 through July 9, 2015. The test borings were drilled with a CME

75, truck-mounted drill rig using hollow stem auger and hand auger techniques. Borings B-4 and

B-6 were drilled to depths of approximately 61 feet below ground surface and Boring B-5 was

drilled in the channel to approximately 5 feet below ground surface. The approximate location of

the test borings are shown on the Log of Test Borings drawing in Figure 2 of this report.

The earth materials encountered in the test borings were visually classified in the field and a

continuous log was recorded. In-place samples of soil units were collected from the test boring

at selected depths by driving a 2.5-inch I.D. split barrel sampler containing brass liners into the

undisturbed soil with a 140-pound automatic safety hammer free falling a distance of 30-inches.

In addition, an ASTM D1586 standard penetrometer without liners (barrel I.D. of 1.5 inches) was

driven 18-inches in the same manner. This latter sampling procedure generally conformed to the

ASTM D1586 test procedure. Resistance to sampler penetration over the last 12-inches is noted

on the Log of Test Borings as the "Penetration Index". The penetration indices listed on the Log

of Test Borings have not been corrected for the effects of overburden pressure, sampler size, rod

length, or hammer efficiency. In addition, bulk samples were obtained from auger cuttings at

selected borings.

Penetration rates determined in general accordance with ASTM D1586 were used to aid in

evaluating the consistency, compression, and strength characteristics of the foundation soils.

2.2 LABORATORY TESTS

Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples to evaluate certain characteristics and

engineering properties. The laboratory testing program was designed with emphasis on the

evaluation of geotechnical properties of foundation materials as they pertain to the proposed

construction. The laboratory testing program included performing the following tests:

• Unit Weight (ASTM D2937)



• Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)

• Grain Size Distribution (ASTM D422, without hydrometer)

• Material in Soils Finer than No. 200 (75-μm) Sieve (ASTM D1140)

• Resistance Value (California Test Method No. 301)

• Direct Shear (ASTM D3080)

• Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM D2166)

• Soluble Sulfate and Chloride Content (California Test Method Nos. 417 and 422)

• pH and Minimum Resistivity (California Test Method No. 643)

The soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, pH, and minimum resistivity results are presented in Section

4.0 (“Corrosion Evaluation”). All other lab test results are presented in Appendix A.

Laboratory data was also used to the extent from recent borings drilled for the concurrent

geotechnical study for the nearby West Manning Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 42C-0691) over

James Bypass West Channel.

2.3 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Soil conditions and characteristics are very similar along the West Manning Avenue alignment at

the two bridge sites (Bridge Nos. 42C-0691 and 42C-0692). Design geotechnical parameters

were based on site specific laboratory data for the entire project alignment and interpretation of

the geology in the area. Consideration was also given to correlations with sample penetration

rates. Table 2.3-1 provides a summary of geotechnical design parameters and generalized soil

profile used.

Table 2.3-1

Geotechnical Design Parameters

Elevation (feet)

Material t

(pcf)1 b

(pcf)2

Φ (degrees)

c (psf)

184 – 168 SC/CL 127 65 33 275

168 – 158 SC/SM 123 61 35 150

158 – 146 CL 129 67 27 1800

Below 146 SP 130 68 40 0




3 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS AND TOPOGRAPHY

Presently, Manning Avenue is a 2-lane paved road supported on a fill embankment, approximately

8 feet above the surrounding grade with about 2:1 (H:V) side slopes. At the time of investigation,

water was not present in the James Bypass East Channel. Some dried vegetation, debris and rip

rap exist on the banks and bottom of the channel. The channel invert at the replacement is

presently at approximately elevation 169 feet with slopes to the abutments. The debris and rip

rap appear to retain sediments in the channel bottom under the bridge and north of the bridge.

The channel bottom drops in elevation south of the bridge.

3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The project site lies in the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley in the Great Valley geomorphic

province in California. This province was formed by the filling of a large structural trough or

downwarp in the underlying bedrock. The trough is situated between the Sierra Nevada Range

on the east and south and the Coast Range on the west. Both of these mountain ranges were

initially formed by uplifts that occurred during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of geologic

time (greater than 65 million years ago). Renewed uplift began in the Sierra Nevada during the

Tertiary time, and is continuing today. The trough that underlies the valley is asymmetrical, with

the greatest depths of sediments near the western margin. The sediments that fill the trough

originated as erosion material from the adjacent mountains and foothills.

3.3 EARTH MATERIALS

The following description provides a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered

during the field exploration and further validated by the laboratory testing program. For a more

thorough description of the actual conditions encountered at the specific boring location, refer to

the Log of Test Borings presented in Figure 2. The soils encountered were classified according

to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).



The upper natural earth material consists of Holocene age Great Valley basin deposits. Typical

to these deposits, the upper soils are laterally discontinuous. The upper 37 feet of soil consisted

of clayey sand and sandy lean clay with layers of laterally discontinuous poorly graded sand and

silty sand. Below an elevation of about 145 to 147 feet, medium dense to dense poorly graded

sands were encountered to the depths explored, about elevation 121 feet.

3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The California Department of Water Resources groundwater elevation contours from well data

indicate the static groundwater elevation in the general project area is about elevation 150 feet.

No free groundwater was encountered in any borings along West Manning Avenue at the two

bridge sites. However, elevated moisture levels were detected.

It is understood the James Bypass East Channel is a flood channel that accepts excess flood

water from the Kings River. Water in the channel is not likely to be sustained long enough to

increase groundwater elevations sufficient to create buoyant effects, but it may be possible that

a temporary perched water zone could develop in the upper 20 feet of soil below the channel

bottom. The temporary perched water condition is anticipated to mound briefly below the channel

bottom and dissipate as the perched water flows laterally away from the channel. Groundwater

conditions at the site could change at some time in the future due to variations in rainfall,

groundwater withdrawal, construction activities, channel flows, and/or other factors not apparent

at the time the test borings were made.

3.5 CHANNEL SCOUR/DEGRADATION

Bridge maintenance reports indicate about 1 to 2 feet of channel degradation from 1956 to the

present, and measured 0.65 feet of degradation of the channel bottom between 2005 to 2011.

The boring within the channel was inconclusive to estimate a depth of historic scour. The mean

grain size (D50) and 90 percent passing grain size (D90) of the soil anticipated to be exposed in

the channel is about 0.15 mm and 0.47 mm, respectively.

A review of the GP for the project indicated potential scour at the supports. A summary of the

design scour is presented in Table 3.5-1.



TABLE 3.5-1 SCOUR DATA

Support No. Long Term (Degradation

and Contraction) Scour Elevation (ft)

Short Term (Local) Scour Depth (ft)

Abutment 1 N/A 7

Abutment 2 N/A 7



4 CORROSION EVALUATION

Soil samples from Borings B-5 (0 to 5 feet), B-6 (30 to 31.5 feet), and borings performed at the

adjacent structure were tested to evaluate the soluble sulfate content, soluble chloride content,

and pH and minimum resistivity. Specific test results are presented in Table 4.1-1.

Table 4.1-1

Corrosion Related Testing

Boring No. Depth (ft) Soluble Sulfate (mg/kg)

Soluble Chloride (mg/kg)

pH Minimum

Resistivity (ohm-cm)

B-2 0-5 199 35.8 9.6 4,200

B-2 20-21.5 3.2 15 8.2 41,500

B-5 0-5 15.7 24.1 8.2 10,500

B-6 30-31.5 7.3 21 8.6 17,100

Laboratory tests indicate the soluble sulfates, soluble chlorides, pH and resistivity are anticipated

to be outside the Caltrans threshold limits for corrosive soils. As such, the site may be considered

as a non-corrosive environment with respect to steel and concrete foundations. Corrosion is

dependent upon a complex variety of conditions, which are beyond the geotechnical practice.

Consequently, a qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted if the owner desires more

specific recommendations and material types and/or mitigation.



5 SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 LOCAL FAULTING

There are no known faults, which cut through the local soil at the site. The project site is not

located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by Special Publication 42 (revised

2007) published by the California Geologic Survey (CGS). Numerous faults and shear zones

within the region could influence the project site.

5.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

Seismic design parameters were developed in accordance with the Caltrans Seismic Design

Criteria Version 1.7.

The project site is located in a region with the potential for relatively moderate seismic activity.

The more significant faults that could influence the project site include the San Andreas (Creeping

Section) (Fault ID No. 182), the Great Valley 13 (Coalinga) (Fault ID No. 205), and the San

Andreas (Parkfield) (Fault ID No. 214). According to the Caltrans fault database, the San Andreas

(Creeping Section and Parkfield) is a strike slip fault with a dip angle of 90 degrees and assigned

a Maximum Magnitude (MMax) of 7.9, and the Great Valley 13 (Coalinga) is reverse fault with a

dip angle of 15 degrees toward the west and assigned a Maximum Magnitude (MMax) of 7.0.

Based on the boring data, the site can be classified as Soil Profile Type D. A Vs30 of 266 m/s was

used for the evaluation. The site is not located within a California deep soil basin region, as

defined by Caltrans, so Z1.0 and Z2.5 were considered not applicable. Site characteristics and

governing deterministic faults are summarized in Table 5.2-1.



Table 5.2-1

Site Characteristics And

Governing Deterministic Faults Parameters

Site Coordinates Lat = 36.603685 deg, Long = -120.130515 deg

Shear Wave Velocity 266 m/s



Fault Name and ID Number San Andreas (Creeping section), No. 182







RRUP1 73.38 km

RjB2 73.38 km

RX3 73.38 km



Fault Name and ID Number Great Valley (Coalinga), No. 205


Fault Type Reverse


Dip Direction West



RRUP1 35.59 km

RjB2 34.41 km

RX3 33.90 km



Fault Name and ID Number San Andreas (Parkfield), No. 214







RRUP1 80.12 km

RjB2 80.12 km

RX3 75.12 km



Notes: 1RRUP = Closest distance from the site to the fault rupture plane. 2RJB = Joyner-Boore distance; the shortest horizontal distance to the surface projection

of the rupture area. 3RX = Horizontal distance from the site to the fault trace or surface projection of the top of

the rupture plane.



5.2.1 Deterministic Response Spectrum

The deterministic response spectrum was developed using ARS Online. The deterministic

response spectrum from the Minimum Spectrum for California governed.

5.2.2 Probabilistic Response Spectrum

The probabilistic response spectrum was developed using ARS Online.

5.2.3 Design Response Spectrum

The upper envelope of the deterministic and probabilistic spectral values determines the design

response spectrum. The probabilistic response spectra were found to govern for all periods. The

recommended acceleration and displacement design response spectra are presented graphically

and numerically in Appendix B.

5.2.4 References

Caltrans. Caltrans ARS Online, http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online

Caltrans. Geotechnical Services Manual.

Caltrans. Seismic Design Criteria, Appendix B Design Spectrum

Caltrans. Website http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/technical.php

5.3 LIQUEFACTION AND SIESMIC SETTLEMENT

In order for liquefaction of soils due to ground shaking to occur, it is generally accepted that four

conditions will exist:

• The subsurface soils are in a relatively loose state,

• The soils are saturated,

• The soils are non-plastic, and

• Ground motion is of sufficient intensity to act as a triggering mechanism.



Based on the ARS curve, the design Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA) is 0.34g, with

a Moment Magnitude of 6.5. The potential for liquefaction was evaluated using Youd et. al. The

depth of ground water would preclude the occurrence of liquefaction.

Dynamic compaction, or seismic settlement, can occur in unsaturated, loose granular soils or in

poorly-compacted fill soils. The potential seismic induced settlement of unsaturated sand

sediments at this site was evaluated using data from the current borings and the methodology

described by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). The results of settlement calculations indicated that the

estimated seismic settlement in the unsaturated soil is estimated to be up to approximately ½- to

¾-inch in Boring B-4 at Abutment 1 and less than ¼-inch in Boring B-6 at Abutment 2 as a result

of a magnitude 6.5 earthquake. This potential seismic settlement may induce downdrag on piles at

Abutment 1.



6 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 GENERAL

Based on the field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses, the soils at the site

are suitable for supporting the planned bridge structure. Due to the scour potential, loading

conditions and other constraints, pile foundations were considered appropriate. Driven piles have

been precluded as an option due to the presence of a nearby underground utility that could be

damaged by vibrations from pile driving. Therefore, Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles are

considered a suitable alternative.

Construction of the bridge will involve complete replacement of the existing structure. The

replacement process will utilize two, 48-inch CIDH piles at each abutment locations. The following

sections discuss conclusions and recommendations to support design of the CIDH pile

foundations.

6.2 PILE FOUNDATIONS

6.2.1 Axial Capacity

Table 6.2-2 provides the recommended design and specified tip elevations for the abutments.

Piles should be spaced at a minimum distance of 12 feet center to center. Reduced axial

capacities would be applicable for piles spaced closer than 12 feet.



Table 6.2-2

Foundation Recommendations for Abutments and Bents

Support Pile Cut-off Elev. (ft)

Service Limit State Max. Load (kips) per

Pile

SP

Required Factored Nominal Resistance per Pile (kips) Design

Tip Elev.1 (ft)

Specified Tip Elev.2

(ft)

Strength Limit Extreme Event

Comp.

(=0.7)

Tens.

(=0.7)

Comp

(=1)

Tens

(=1)

Abut 1 48” CIDH 174.49 540 2” 840 0 570 0

132 (a) 128 (a-I) 149 (a-II), 150 (c), TBD (d)

128

Abut 2 48” CIDH 174.33 540 2” 840 0 570 0

138 (a) 134 (a-I) 153 (a-II), 152 (c), TBD (d)

134

Notes: (1) Design tip elevations are controlled by: (a) Compression (Service Limit), (a-I) Compression (Strength Limit), (b-I) Tension (Strength Limit), (a-II) Compression (Extreme Event), (b-II) Tension (Extreme Event), (c) Settlement, (d) Lateral Load.

(2) The specified tip elevation shall not be raised above the design tip elevations for tension, lateral, and tolerable settlement. (3) The nominal driving resistance required is equal to the nominal resistance needed to support the factored load plus driving resistance

from the potentially liquefied soil layers, which do not contribute to the design resistance. (4) Design tip elevation for lateral loading to be provided by Cornerstone.



6.2.2 Foundation Construction Considerations

Pile borings will primarily expose relatively clean to silty sand, which will be susceptible to caving.

Construction of the CIDH piles should utilize a casing oscillator, permanent or temporary casing,

or slurry assisted drilling techniques. If permanent casing is used, Special Provisions should

require the casing be tight to the soil (similar to Caltrans Standard Specification for temporary

casing).

6.2.3 Lateral Capacity

The lateral response of pile foundations can be evaluated using LPILE Plus Version 5.0, or

greater, for Windows (computer software developed by Ensoft Inc.). The geotechnical parameters

summarized in Table 6.2-3 can be used for evaluation of lateral loading of piles at abutment

locations.

TABLE 6.2-3

LPILE Parameters, Abutments

Elevation 1 (feet)


(pci)

(degree)

c (psi)

k (pci)

50

184 – 168 Silt 0.073 33 1.91 300 0.005

168 – 158 Silt 0.071 35 1.04 250 0.005

158 – 146 Stiff Clay w/o Free Water 0.075 -- 12.5 -- 0.007

Below 146 Sand (Reese) 0.075 40 -- 200 --

Notes: 1 Assumes Elevation 184 for bridge deck

When considering the lateral capacity of a pile group, it will be necessary to reduce the single pile

capacity of trailing piles. The reduction in capacity due to the effects of shaft interaction will be

dependent upon the center-to-center (CTC) pile spacing. It is recommended that the capacity of

individual trailing piles in a laterally loaded group be reduced according to the data in Table 6.2-

4.



Table 6.2-4

Group Affect for Laterally Loaded Pile

CTC Spacing (In-line Loading)

Ratio of Lateral Resistance of Trailing Pile in Group to Isolated Single Pile

3B 0.6

4B 0.8

5B 1.0

Note: B is pile width

If desired, a more precise lateral group effect can be evaluated based on final geometry.

6.3 DYNAMIC LOADING

6.3.1 Abutment Dynamic Lateral Resistance

For backfill at abutments constructed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Caltrans

Standard Specifications (2015), an initial abutment soil stiffness of 50 kip/in/ft is recommended.

The ultimate lateral resistance that may be applied against abutments to resist seismic loading

will be dependent on the deflection that occurs (which mobilizes shear resistance in the soil).

Figure 6.3-1 presents the ultimate equivalent uniform lateral soil resistance as a function of

horizontal strain (deflection/height) for the abutments. The maximum resistance for strain in

excess of 1.0 percent is 5.0 ksf, when the height of the wall that is buried below the horizontal

ground surface is equal to, or greater than, 5.5 feet. When the abutment height is less than 5.5

feet, the maximum equivalent uniform lateral soil resistance shall be reduced proportionately by

H/5.5, where H is the endwall height in feet.



Figure 6.3-1

Unfactored Nominal Lateral Bearing for Seismic Loading at Abutments

6.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Table 6.4-1 provides the lateral earth pressures against retaining walls. The recommended values

do not include lateral pressures due to hydrostatic forces. Therefore, wall backfill should be

adequately drained. Data are presented for active, braced, and at-rest conditions for walls

supporting level ground surface. The values consider the anticipated strength of backfill and the

performance of existing structures. Lateral earth pressures are strain related. The active pressure

would be applicable to walls capable of rotating 0.0005 radians. The at-rest pressures are

applicable to walls fully fixed against translation or rotation. The at-rest pressures include the Jaky

solution for normally consolidated soil plus consideration for the locked-in pressure associated

with the pre-stressing due to backfill compaction (over-consolidation).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Horizontal Strain (%)

Eff

ec

tiv

e U

nif

orm

So

il R

es

ista

nc

e (

ks

f)

Maximum 5.0 ksf



Table 6.4-1

Retaining Wall Parameters

Condition Earth Pressures

Active 35 psf/ft

Braced1 23H psf

At Rest 85 psf/ft

Dynamic Increments 13 psf/ft

Note: 1 H is the wall height in feet.

The above values are less than those used for Caltrans Standard Plan walls. Therefore, Standard

Plan retaining walls could be used.

6.5 EARTHWORK

In general, any required fill or backfill should be constructed in accordance with the latest revisions

of Caltrans Standard Specifications. It is anticipated minor fills may be associated with the project,

and are anticipated to not have significant post-construction settlement.

6.6 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Soil samples were obtained along Manning Avenue alignment at the two bridge sites (Bridge Nos.

42C-0691 and 42C-0692). The site subgrade soil consists of sandy lean clays and clayey sands

at B-3 and B-4 with R-values of 8 and 6, respectively. A design R-value of 5 was used for Manning

Avenue. Table 6.6-1 provides optional conventional flexible pavement sections for Traffic Indexes

of 8.5 and 9.0, based on an anticipated daily traffic provided by Cornerstone. Analysis is based

on Caltrans procedures.

Table 6.6-1

Conventional Flexible Pavement Sections


Traffic Index Optional Sections (feet)

2-Layer Section 3-Layer Section

8.5 0.40 HMA / 1.65 AB 0.40 HMA / 0.55 AB / 1.20 ASB

9.0 0.45 HMA / 1.70 AB 0.45 HMA / 0.55 AB / 1.30 ASB



Table 6.6-2 provides overlay recommendations for existing pavement. Sections are based on the

anticipated R-Value of existing subgrade soil, the furnished Traffic Index (TI) for the road segment,

and a 10-year and 20-year design life. It is understood the County of Fresno is planning to mill

and overlay the existing pavement to match previous overlays west and east of the project site.

The proposed overlay thickness is anticipated to be 0.45 feet. Considering the R-value and design

TI, the proposed overlay thickness is not anticipated to provide a 20-year design life, but is

anticipated to have a similar design life to other portions of Manning Avenue that have recently

had similar overlays.

Table 6.6-2

Recommended Design Pavement Sections


Traffic Index Minimum Overlay (feet)

10-year Design 20-year Design

8.5 0.85 HMA 0.95 HMA

9.0 0.95 HMA 1.00 HMA

Hot mix asphalt (HMA), Class 2 aggregate base (AB) and Class 2 aggregate subbase (AS) should

conform to, and be placed in accordance with, the latest revision of Caltrans Standard

Specifications. Considering the clayey nature of the subgrade, it is recommended subgrade be

scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture and

compacted to at least 90 percent, but not more than 95 percent of maximum density. It is

recommended the maximum density for subgrade be based on ASTM D1557.

Alternatively, full depth reclamation with cement (FDR-C) of subgrade and HMA could be

considered. A minimum FDR-C section of 18 inches would be recommended. If FDR-C is chosen

as the design alternative, a mix design can be prepared. For preliminary purposes, a portland

cement content of 5 to 7 percent amendment is typical in sandy lean clay materials to result in a

design unconfined compressive strength of 400 psi. The minimum HMA thickness would be 0.35

and 0.40 feet for TIs of 8.5 and 9, respectively. The “weak link” of the section is the HMA wearing

surface, which is the easiest and most economical layer to maintain, repair, or rehabilitate to meet

future needs. The full depth thickness, versus the minimum thickness, is less vulnerable to brittle

fatigue or shrinkage cracking. The use of 1.5 feet of cement treated subgrade (CTS) will result in



the overall HMA/CTS being suitable for a TI of 9.7 and 10.2, with the HMA surface being the only

element requiring future rehabilitation. Traffic can be diverted onto the compacted full depth CTS

after finish grading. With the minimum CTS thickness, automobile traffic could be placed on the

subgrade after finish grading. Care must be exercised to not over stress the minimum CTS with

truck traffic until the first HMA lift is placed.

Lime treatment could be considered to reduce aggregate base thickness for asphalt pavement

sections. Previous work performed in the area has indicated that lime treatment using an

engineered process, which includes testing for soil chemistry, necessary lime content and R-

Value, and development of QC/QA procedures, can successfully improve the stability of subgrade

materials. If lime treatment is desired, the additional testing and recommendations can be

provided.



7 CLOSURE

The conclusions and recommendations in this report are for the design of the proposed West

Manning Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 42C-0692) replacement across the James Bypass East

Channel, located in Fresno County, California, as described in the text of this report. The findings,

conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with

generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty, express or implied, is made.

The field exploration program and this report were based on the proposed project information

provided to Kleinfelder. If any change (i.e., structure type, location, etc.) is implemented which

materially alters the project, additional geotechnical services may be required, which could include

revisions to the recommendations given herein.

This report is intended for use by Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group, County of Fresno,

and their subconsultants, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Noncompliance with the

recommendations of the report or misuse of the report will release Kleinfelder from any liability.

The scope of the geotechnical services did not include an environmental site assessment for the

presence or absence of hazardous/toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or

atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands.



FIGURES ___________________________________________________________________________________


0

6,000 6,0003,000

APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)

AT

TA

CH

ED

X

RE

FS

:

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: Im

ag

es

: U

SG

S_T

he

Na

tio

na

lM

ap

_A

eria

l_4

-m

il_

3-2

01

5_S

an

Jo

aq

uin

-C

A.J

PG

FILE NAME:

20161220-fig1_SVM-WBrg.dwg

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN:

PROJECT NO.

CA

D F

IL

E: C

:\C

AD

D\2

01

5\2

01

61

22

0\J

am

es

By

pa

ss

Brid

ge

-M

an

nin

gA

ve

_7

-2

01

5\W

es

te

rn

Brid

ge

\ L

AY

OU

T: 1

PL

OT

TE

D: 1

5 J

ul 2

01

5, 9

:3

5p

m, M

Griffin

www.kleinfelder.com

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of

sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or

warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of

such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it

designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information

contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the

information.

LO

NG

B

EA

CH

, C

A


BRIDGE NO. 42C-0067


FIGURE

1MRG

NP

7/2015

20161220

SITE VICINITY MAP

CA

D F

IL

E: L

:C

AD

D\2

01

5\

SOURCE: U.S.G.S. / THE NATIONAL MAP, AERIAL SERIES, SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA, DATED 4/2014.

42C-0692

BRIDGE 42C-0692

��

!�""�"��)�"(��&'��%��

��

��

�� *��90,86/:��;.

�8.956��+31/6851+��

��

90%


APPENDIX A

___________________________________________________________________________________

Figure

Laboratory Summary Table ............................................................................................... A-1/A-2 Sieve Analysis......................................................................................................................... A-3 Unconfined Compressive Strength .......................................................................................... A-4 Direct Shear ...................................................................................................................... A-5/A-6 Resistance Value .................................................................................................................... A-7


B-4 0.67 - 5.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) R-Value= 6

B-4 5.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 15.5 107.9 Direct Shear=





B-4 10.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 26.5 86.1

B-4 15.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 46

B-4 20.0 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 13.9 113.5

B-4 30.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 14.5 102.3


B-4 40.0 POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP) 5.2 92.7 Direct Shear=





B-5 0.0 - 5.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 29 pH= 8.2

Resistivity= 10500

Sulfates= 15.7

Chlorides= 24.1

B-6 5.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 17.5 113.6

B-6 10.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 73

B-6 15.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 8.9 114.1


B-6 25.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 22.4 104.0 Unconfined Compressive Strength=

qu: 3580 psf Strain at Failure: 4.3%

B-6 30.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) pH= 8.6

Resistivity= 17000

Pas

sin

g 3

/4"

Sieve Analysis (%)

Pas

sin

g #

4

Pas

sin

g #

200

Atterberg Limits

Liq

uid

Lim

it

Sample Description

Pla

stic

Lim

it

Wat

er C

on

ten

t (%

)

Dry

Un

it W

t. (

pcf

)




A-1

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Depth(ft.)






CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

REVISED: -

DATE:


42C-0692

Sulfates= 7.3

Chlorides= 21

B-6 35.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 16.0 109.1

Pas

sin

g 3

/4"

Sieve Analysis (%)

Pas

sin

g #

4

Pas

sin

g #

200

Atterberg Limits

Liq

uid

Lim

it

Sample Description

Pla

stic

Lim

it

Wat

er C

on

ten

t (%

)

Dry

Un

it W

t. (

pcf

)




A-2

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Depth(ft.)






CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

REVISED: -

DATE:


42C-0692

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

Sample Description LL PL PI

%SiltCu %ClayCcExploration ID Depth (ft.)

FIGURE

A-3

SIEVE ANALYSIS

50HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

1403 4 20 40

BO

UL

DE

R

6 601.5 8 143/4 1/212 3/8 3 10024 16 301 2006 10

Sieve Analysis and Hydrometer Analysis testing performed in general accordancewith ASTM D422.NP = NonplasticNM = Not Measured

D60 D30 D10D100Passing

3/4"Passing

#4Passing

#200

NMNM NM

0.077 NM0 - 5 2.36 NMNM


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

medium fine

GRAVEL SANDCOBBLE

coarse coarseCLAYSILT

fine

Coefficients of Uniformity - Cu = D60 / D10

Coefficients of Curvature - CC = (D30)2 / D60 D10




29

0 - 5B-5

B-5 0.199

SILTY SAND (SM)

NM NM




CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 7/10/2015

DRAWN BY: TD

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

ftin

g\20

15\

201

6122

0-J

ames

Byp

ass

Brid

ges\

201

612

20-J

ames

Byp

ass

Brid

ges.

gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_SIE

VE

AN

ALY

SIS

]P

LOT

TE

D:

08/1

8/20

15

01

:24

PM

BY

: np

open

oe


42C-0692

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

2,400

2,800

3,200

3,600

4,000

0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

FIGUREUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH

A-3


104.1 NM22.461.2 2.3:1140.5 NM NMNM NM

Sample Description

Time to Failure (min) Average Rate of Strainto Failure (%/min) Strain at Failure (%)Unconfined Compressive

Strength (psf)Shear Strength (psf)

InitialWater

Content(%)

InitialDry

Unit Wt.(pcf)

InitialSaturation

(%)

InitialVoidRatio

InitialHeight(mm)

InitialSample

Dia.(mm)

InitialHeight toDiameter

Ratio

SpecificGravity LL

AXIAL STRAIN (%)

PL PISpecimenNo.

Passing#200

SampleCondition

Type

25

NM NM 3580NM 4.3

Undisturbed1 NM NM

UN

CO

NF

INE

D C

OM

PR

ES

SIV

E S

TR

ES

S (

psf)


B-6 SILTY SAND (SM)




CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 7/10/2015

DRAWN BY: TD

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

fting

\20

15\2

016

122

0-Ja

mes

Byp

ass

Brid

ges\

2016

1220

-Jam

es B

ypas

s B

ridge

s.gp

j

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_ST

AN

DA

RD

_GIN

T_L

IBR

AR

Y_2

015

.GLB

[K

LF_U

NC

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

]P

LOT

TE

D:

08/0

7/20

15

03

:15

PM

BY

: T

DeS

ouza


42C-06924

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000


Init

ial

At

Tes

t



Strain Rate(in/min)


5


NM NMNMNM

DIRECT SHEAR FIGURE

A-5

1

2

3




90.3

89.4

88.9

1.00

1.00

1.00

30.6

30.4

29.8

73.4

82.5

81.0

NormalStress (psf)

1.00

1.00

1.00

4.60

4.60

4.60

971.15

1666.02

2695.18

861.79

1533.37

1917.05

Specimen No.

Results

Peak


NM

Tan (deg)

1

2

3

1

2

3

1000

2000

3000

4.60

4.60

4.60

0.4900

0.4800

0.4800

0.005

0.005

0.005

20% Stress

Friction (deg)


Cohesion (psf)


SH

EA

R S

TR

ES

S (

psf)


NORMAL STRESS (psf)

B-4

15.5

15.5

15.5

275

200

35

33

CLAYEY SAND (SC)




CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 7/10/2015

DRAWN BY: TD

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

ftin

g\20

15\

201

6122

0-J

ames

Byp

ass

Brid

ges\

201

612

20-J

ames

Byp

ass

Brid

ges.

gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_DIR

EC

T S

HE

AR

]P

LOT

TE

D:

08/1

8/20

15

01

:27

PM

BY

: np

open

oe


42C-0692

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000


Init

ial

At

Tes

t



Strain Rate(in/min)


40


NM NMNMNM

DIRECT SHEAR FIGURE

A-6

1

2

3




88.5

88.0

89.7

1.00

1.00

1.00

30.3

31.0

32.0

68.4

74.4

63.4

NormalStress (psf)

1.00

1.00

1.00

4.60

4.60

4.60

2176.52

3085.06

3642.78

1900.85

2760.25

3165.65

Specimen No.

Results

Peak


NM

Tan (deg)

1

2

3

1

2

3

3000

4000

5000

4.60

4.60

4.60

0.4800

0.4800

0.4800

0.005

0.005

0.005

20% Stress

Friction (deg)


Cohesion (psf)


SH

EA

R S

TR

ES

S (

psf)


NORMAL STRESS (psf)

B-4

5.2

5.2

5.2

25

75

36

32

POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP)




CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 7/10/2015

DRAWN BY: TD

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

ftin

g\20

15\

201

6122

0-J

ames

Byp

ass

Brid

ges\

201

612

20-J

ames

Byp

ass

Brid

ges.

gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_DIR

EC

T S

HE

AR

]P

LOT

TE

D:

08/1

8/20

15

01

:27

PM

BY

: np

open

oe


42C-0692

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

FIGURE

A-6

R-VALUE

Exploration ID Depth (ft.) R-Value @ 300 psiExudation PressureSample Description

CorrectedResistance

ValueExudation Pressure (psi)Expansion Pressure (psi)Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

R-V

ALU

E

EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)

6

1

2

3

113.8

110.6

116.1

299

226

472

15.6

16.9

14.3

6

4

8

0

0

0

Moisture at Time of Test (%)Specimen No.

Testing perfomed in general accordance with ASTM D2844.

B-4 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)0.67 - 5




CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 7/10/2015

DRAWN BY: TD

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

fting

\20

15\2

016

122

0-Ja

mes

Byp

ass

Brid

ges\

2016

1220

-Jam

es B

ypas

s B

ridge

s.gp

j

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_ST

AN

DA

RD

_GIN

T_L

IBR

AR

Y_2

015

.GLB

[K

LF_R

-VA

LUE

]P

LOT

TE

D:

08/0

7/20

15

03

:24

PM

BY

: T

DeS

ouza


42C-06927


APPENDIX B

ARS CURVE

___________________________________________________________________________________


SITE DATALatitude: 36.6037 Shear Wave Velocity 266 m/s

Longitude: -120.130515Depth to Vs = 1.0 km/s: N/A

Depth to Vs = 2.5 km/s: N/A

Period (s) SA (g) SD (in)

0.01 (PGA) 0.346 0.00

0.05 0.524 0.01

0.1 0.627 0.06

0.15 0.710 0.16

0.2 0.775 0.30

0.25 0.762 0.47

0.3 0.751 0.66

0.4 0.673 1.05

0.5 0.618 1.51

0.6 0.556 1.96

0.7 0.508 2.44

0.85 0.442 3.13

1 0.389 3.81

1.2 0.330 4.65

1.5 0.271 5.97

2 0.210 8.22

3 0.135 11.89

4 0.096 15.03

5 0.077 18.84

PROJECT NO 20161220 FIGURE

DRAWN: 8/3/17

DRAWN BY: TD

CHECKED BY: NMP

FILE NAME:

CALTRANS ARS CURVES


BRIDGE NO. 42C-0692


B-1

www.kleinfelder.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Sp

ectr

al

Accele

rati

on

(g

)

Period (seconds)

Design Spectrum



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Sp

ectr

al

Dis

pla

cem

en

t (i

n)

Period (seconds)

Design Spectrum




august 4, 2017 revised: july 17, 2020 mr. mark a. weaver

Documents